Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
06/24/2019 04:17
05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024
710998/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
06/24/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
-------------------------------------------------------------------x
WAIKEUNG TSANG and SHIANG HO Index No.:
Plaintiffs,
SUMMONS
-against-
The basis for venue is the place
114-08 TAIPEI INC. and WING FUNG CHAU a/k/a where the subject real property
“ANDY CHAU” is situated
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------x
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your Answer on the plaintiff’s attorney within (20) days after the services of this Summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within (30) days after the service is complete if this Summons is not
personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or
answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 24, 2019
MUCHMORE & ASSOCIATES PLLC
Counsel for Plaintiffs
By:
Marwan Sehwail, Esq.
217 Havemeyer Street, 4th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11211
(917) 932-0299
1 of 11
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
06/24/2019 04:17
05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024
710998/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
06/24/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
-------------------------------------------------------------------x
WAIKEUNG TSANG and SHIANG HO Index No.:
Plaintiffs,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
-against-
114-08 TAIPEI INC. and WING FUNG CHAU a/k/a
“ANDY CHAU”
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned counsel, Muchmore & Associates PLLC, as and for his
Complaint herein, allege as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiffs Waikeung Tsang and Shiang Ho (“Plaintiffs” or “Purchasers”) are individuals
currently residing in Manhattan.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wing Fung Chau is an individual currently
residing in Queens, New York.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant 114-08 Taipei Inc. (together with Mr. Chau,
“Defendant” or “Seller”) is a domestic business corporation with its principal place of business at 86-
22 Broadway 2nd Floor, Elmhurst New York, 11373.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to CPLR § 301.
5. Venue is proper in Queens County pursuant to CPLR § 507.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
6. Plaintiffs are a married couple who sought to purchase a newly built home from
defendant 114-08 Taipei Inc. and its principal, Wing Fung Chau. In May 2015, Plaintiffs entered into a
Residential Contract of Sale, whose terms gave the Sellers 12 months to complete the relatively
2 of 11
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
06/24/2019 04:17
05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024
710998/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
06/24/2019
straightforward construction of a two family home near the waterfront in College Point, Queens, and
gave the Plaintiffs the option to purchase with a mortgage. The Plaintiffs were required to pay a down
payment of $400,000 of the $950,000 purchase price. Rather than complete the construction within 12
months as required by the Contract, the Seller delayed the closing for nearly four years, giving the
Plaintiffs vague and misleading excuses for the unreasonable delay in obtaining a certificate of
occupancy. Often, the Seller simply ignored the Plaintiffs’ requests for updates or made promises
regarding the completion of construction that Seller knew to be false. Because the Plaintiffs were able
to complete the purchase with cash, and because of the unique nature and pricing of the Property, the
Plaintiffs chose to excuse the four year delay assuming that the Seller would honor the Contract once
the Property was finally ready for sale. However, after the certificate of occupancy was finally obtained
in March of 2019, the Seller, without sending written notice as required by the Contract, unilaterally
attempted to terminate the Contract, and returned the Plaintiffs’ $400,000 deposit when Plaintiffs had
made no such request. Upon information and belief, the Defendants wanted to back out of the deal
because they believed they could sell the property at a price much greater than bargained for in 2015,
and because they never intended to sell the property to the Plaintiffs in the first place. Instead, the
Defendants, upon information and belief, have been operating a scheme whereby they obtained large
deposits from purchasers and used those deposits to fund other projects or pay back other purchasers,
all while the Defendants benefited from rising real estate prices. Plaintiffs now sue for specific
performance, or in the alternative, for monetary damages.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
7. Defendant 114-08 Taipei Inc. (“Taipei”) is the owner in fee simple of the real property at
114-03 Taipei Court Blvd., College Point, NY at Block No. 4019, Lot No. 126 on the land and tax map
of the County of Queens in the State of New York (the “Property”).
3 of 11
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
06/24/2019 04:17
05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024
710998/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
06/24/2019
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wing Fung Chau, alias “Andy Chau” is the
principal of, beneficial owner of and/or controls Taipei, and controlled or oversaw the course of
conduct alleged herein, including the real estate development of which 114-03 Taipei Court is a part.
9. On or about May 12, 2015, Defendant Taipei executed a contract with Plaintiff
Waikeung Tsang to sell the Property (the “Contract”).
10. Plaintiff Waikeung Tsang is the husband of Plaintiff Shiag Ho. Mrs. Ho is the legal
guardian and has power of attorney for Mr. Tsang, who suffers from a recent Alzheimer diagnosis.
11. At the time Mr. Tsang entered into the Contract, he had not been diagnosed with
Alzheimer and was of sound mind.
12. Upon information and belief, Wing Fung Home Realty Home Realty Group, Inc. was
the sole broker who brought about the sale.
13. The Contract, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, set the purchase price as $950,000, with a
first deposit of $400,000, payable to the Seller at the time of execution. The final $550,000 was to be
paid directly to the Seller at the Closing of Title.
14. The Contract included a mortgage contingency option for the purchase, which allowed
the Purchasers to pay the purchase price by announcing it could do so within 60 days of written notice
of the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (“TCO”).
15. Upon information and belief, no TCO was ever issued, nor written notice of same sent to
the Plaintiffs.
16. In the paragraph designated as “DELIVERY OF DEED”, the Contract reads that “It is
anticipated that the closing would take place on or before TWELVE (12) months from the date
Purchaser’s Attorney receives a fully executed contract but no later than on or before Thirty (30) days
from written notification to PURCHASER’S attorney that a Final Certificate of Occupancy has been
issued”.
4 of 11
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
06/24/2019 04:17
05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024
710998/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
06/24/2019
17. Immediately following the sentence regarding a Final Certificate of Occupancy, the
Contract shows that the clause “TIME BEING OF THE ESSENCE” was stricken from the contract.
18. The Contract required Seller to erect and complete a legal two (2) family dwelling at its
own cost and expense.
19. Seller took nearly four years, an unreasonable period of time, to complete the
construction.
20. Throughout this time, Seller gave vague and implausible excuses for why the work was
taking so long to complete.
21. Seller promised to complete the work in a reasonable period of time but failed to do so
knowingly. Accordingly, seller intentionally misled the Plaintiffs.
22. Seller made omissions and misrepresentations to Purchasers and/or Purchasers’
transactional attorney regarding the reasons for delay, that Purchaser reasonably relied upon. In doing
so, Seller induced Purchaser to avoid canceling the Contract because of the unreasonable delay, and
refrain from requesting a return of the down payment.
23. For example, Seller misrepresented that the construction of the Property was being
stalled by problems with electricity and water. Upon information and belief, this was false and does not
in any case explain four years of delay.
24. In other instances, Seller simply made empty assurances to the Purchasers, promising
that the work would be done “soon” but never delivering on said promises.
25. The Seller also made material omissions; namely, upon information and belief, that it
was using the deposit to fund other projects.
26. Upon information and belief, Seller was not actually working on the construction of the
home during that four year period. Instead, the Seller used Purchaser’s deposit during that period to
fund other projects and/or return deposits to other purchasers in a manner resembling a Ponzi scheme.
5 of 11
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
06/24/2019 04:17
05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024
710998/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
06/24/2019
27. In fact, Plaintiffs were aware of other purchasers in the same development who had been
similarly wronged and potentially defrauded by Defendants and their associates.
28. As a result, Defendants, who had no intention of selling the property to Purchasers,
defrauded Purchasers and deprived them of the use of nearly half a million dollars for four years that
could have been used as a down payment for the sale of a property from an honest seller.
29. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs waited patiently, in reliance on the Contract and Seller’s
repeated assurances, and intended to close on the property as soon as possible.
30. Upon information and belief, on or about May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs’ transactional attorney
sent a request for the extension of the mortgage contingency period. Nonetheless, Plaintiff was willing
and able to close with cash if need be.
31. In a letter dated May 28, 2019, Seller’s counsel sent a letter of “request of Contract
Termination and return of Contract Deposit” to Plaintiffs’ transactional attorney (the “Request for
Termination”) via email.
32. Article 39 of the Contract explicitly requires that all notices pursuant to the conditions of
the Contract shall be in writing and sent to the attorneys by certified or registered mail or facsimile.
33. Upon information and belief, no such notice was sent.
34. The Seller returned the $400,000.00 deposit on or about June 2019.
35. After being retained as litigation counsel, Plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, sent a
letter on June 19, 2019 (the “Demand Letter”) in response to the May 28 letter.
36. The Demand Letter denied the Seller’s request to rescind or terminate and restated the
Plaintiffs’ intent to proceed with the closing of the Property as soon as possible, on a cash basis if
necessary.
37. Seller subsequently failed to confirm its intent to honor its obligations under the
Contract and proceed with the sale.
6 of 11
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
06/24/2019 04:17
05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024
710998/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
06/24/2019
38. On approximately June 24, 2019, upon information and belief in an effort to derogate
the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Contract and to encumber the Property to discourage Plaintiff from
bringing this lawsuit, Defendant mortgaged the Property for $1.4 million dollars, nearly $500,000 more
than the purchase price in the Contract.
39. The filing and recording of the mortgage documents with the New York State
Department of Taxation and Finance website, right after Plaintiffs issued their Demand Letter, is further
evidence of the Defendants’ intentional fraud and misleading behavior.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE)
40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation above with the same force and
effect as if set forth at length herein.
41. There exists a contract for the sale of the Property between Plaintiffs and Seller.
42. Plaintiffs duly performed all of their obligations under the Contract prior to Seller’s
repudiation and remain ready, willing, and able to perform their remaining obligations.
43. Upon information and belief, there are no outstanding title issues with respect to the
Property, including the recent, possibly fraudulent mortgage, that Seller could not clear, and the Seller
is able to deliver merchantable title to the Plaintiffs if so ordered by the Court.
44. The Property is unique in character and the Plaintiff would have no adequate remedy at
law if specific performance were not granted.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(BREACH OF CONTRACT)
45. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation above with the same force and
effect as if set forth at length herein.
46. The Contract is legally enforceable as a binding offer and acceptance with consideration.
7 of 11
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
06/24/2019 04:17
05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024
710998/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
06/24/2019
47. The Contract was a legally enforceable writing within the meaning of NY Gen.
Obligations Law § 5-701.
48. Plaintiff fulfilled all of its obligations under the Contract.
49. Seller breached the Contract by representing that it would not proceed with the agreed
transaction and returning the $400,000 initial deposit, despite Plaintiff’s intent and ability to close.
50. As a result, if Plaintiff is not able to obtain specific performance, Plaintiff is due
monetary damages of no less than $500,000, representing the approximate additional cost to Plaintiff to
purchase a home of similar quality and character.
51. Seller also breached the Contract by failing to obtain the final certificate of occupancy
within 12 months from the date of the Contract, as required by the final paragraph of the first page of
the Contract.
52. That paragraph obligates the Seller to pay Plaintiff five (5) percent interest per annum,
which equals, to date, at least approximately $80,000. Seller has failed to make any payments.
53. As a result of the foregoing, Seller breached the Contract, thereby causing damages to
Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $600,000.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(FRAUD)
54. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations above with the same force and effect as if
set forth at length herein.
55. Defendants lied to Plaintiffs about the completion date of the construction required by
the Contract, and made misrepresentations to Plaintiffs throughout the four years that it took to obtain a
final certificate of occupancy.
56. Defendants made false excuses for why the construction took four years, including
making statements that issues with electricity and water were preventing the construction from moving
forward. Many of these statements were false.
8 of 11
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
06/24/2019 04:17
05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024
710998/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
06/24/2019
57. Defendants avoided responding to Plaintiffs’ inquiries regarding the delays in
construction, thereby misleading the Plaintiffs.
58. While some issues may have existed, they do not explain four years of delay. Defendants
made assurances and promises to the Plaintiffs throughout the four years that construction would be
complete soon that Defendants knew to be false or misleading.
59. Defendants did so in order to profit from the misappropriation for four years of
Plaintiffs’ $400,000 deposit.
60. Upon information and belief, Defendants used the deposit to fund other construction
projects, to pay off other debts, and to return deposits on other contracts of sale they had no intention of
fulfilling.
61. After enriching themselves through the use of the deposit, and after the value of the
Property greatly increased, upon information and belief, Defendants obtained funds from elsewhere,
and used those to return Plaintiffs’ deposit, with the hope that Plaintiffs would walk away, and
Defendants would be able to enjoy their ill-gotten gains.
62. Because of Defendants’ fraud, Plaintiffs were deprived of $400,000 for four years that
they could have used to purchase a similar property when prices were lower. Now, if Plaintiffs cannot
purchase the Property, they will be forced to expend hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to
purchase a home.
63. Plaintiffs are elderly and Mr. Tsang has a deteriorating medical condition that makes
Defendants’ conduct especially egregious in depriving them of the home for which they bargained,
paid, and waited patiently for four years.
64. As a result, Defendant Mr. Wing Fung Chau, alis “Andy Chau” should be held
personally liable for the damages caused to Plaintiffs, in an amount to be determined at trial but no less
than $600,000.
9 of 11
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
06/24/2019 04:17
05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024
710998/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
06/24/2019
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:
a) on the first cause of action ordering the sale of the Property to Plaintiffs;
b) on the second cause of action against defendant Taipei, in the amount of no less than
$600,000 plus interest;
c) on the third cause of action against defendant Wing Fung Chau alias “Andy Chau” in the
amount of no less than $600,000 plus interest; and
d) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Brooklyn, NY MUCHMORE & ASSOCIATES PLLC
June 24, 2019 Counsel for Plaintiffs
By:
Marwan Sehwail, Esq.
217 Havemeyer Street, 4th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11211
(917) 932-0299
10 of 11
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024
06/24/2019 04:17
05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024
710998/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024
06/24/2019
ATTORNEY VERIFICATION
The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, an associate with
the law firm of Muchmore & Associates PLLC, attorneys for plaintiffs Waikeung Tsang and Shiang Ho,
hereby affirms the following to be true: deponent has read the foregoing Verified Complaint and knows
the contents thereof; the same is true to deponent’s own knowledge, except as to the matters therein
stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes to be true;
and the reason this verification is being made by deponent and not by Mr. Tsang or Mrs. Ho is because
they are located in New York County, New York. The grounds of deponent’s knowledge are
communications with Plaintiffs and copies of Plaintiff's records in deponent’s possession.
The undersigned affirms this statement to be true under penalties of perjury.
Dated: June 24, 2019
Marwan Sehwail
11 of 11
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 04:17 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024 710998/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS -------------------------------------------------------------------x WAIKEUNG TSANG and SHIANG HO Index No.: Plaintiffs, SUMMONS -against- The basis for venue is the place 114-08 TAIPEI INC. and WING FUNG CHAU a/k/a where the subject real property “ANDY CHAU” is situated Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------x TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your Answer on the plaintiff’s attorney within (20) days after the services of this Summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within (30) days after the service is complete if this Summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Dated: Brooklyn, New York June 24, 2019 MUCHMORE & ASSOCIATES PLLC Counsel for Plaintiffs By: Marwan Sehwail, Esq. 217 Havemeyer Street, 4th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11211 (917) 932-0299 1 of 11 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 04:17 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024 710998/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS -------------------------------------------------------------------x WAIKEUNG TSANG and SHIANG HO Index No.: Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- 114-08 TAIPEI INC. and WING FUNG CHAU a/k/a “ANDY CHAU” Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned counsel, Muchmore & Associates PLLC, as and for his Complaint herein, allege as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs Waikeung Tsang and Shiang Ho (“Plaintiffs” or “Purchasers”) are individuals currently residing in Manhattan. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wing Fung Chau is an individual currently residing in Queens, New York. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant 114-08 Taipei Inc. (together with Mr. Chau, “Defendant” or “Seller”) is a domestic business corporation with its principal place of business at 86- 22 Broadway 2nd Floor, Elmhurst New York, 11373. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to CPLR § 301. 5. Venue is proper in Queens County pursuant to CPLR § 507. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 6. Plaintiffs are a married couple who sought to purchase a newly built home from defendant 114-08 Taipei Inc. and its principal, Wing Fung Chau. In May 2015, Plaintiffs entered into a Residential Contract of Sale, whose terms gave the Sellers 12 months to complete the relatively 2 of 11 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 04:17 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024 710998/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 straightforward construction of a two family home near the waterfront in College Point, Queens, and gave the Plaintiffs the option to purchase with a mortgage. The Plaintiffs were required to pay a down payment of $400,000 of the $950,000 purchase price. Rather than complete the construction within 12 months as required by the Contract, the Seller delayed the closing for nearly four years, giving the Plaintiffs vague and misleading excuses for the unreasonable delay in obtaining a certificate of occupancy. Often, the Seller simply ignored the Plaintiffs’ requests for updates or made promises regarding the completion of construction that Seller knew to be false. Because the Plaintiffs were able to complete the purchase with cash, and because of the unique nature and pricing of the Property, the Plaintiffs chose to excuse the four year delay assuming that the Seller would honor the Contract once the Property was finally ready for sale. However, after the certificate of occupancy was finally obtained in March of 2019, the Seller, without sending written notice as required by the Contract, unilaterally attempted to terminate the Contract, and returned the Plaintiffs’ $400,000 deposit when Plaintiffs had made no such request. Upon information and belief, the Defendants wanted to back out of the deal because they believed they could sell the property at a price much greater than bargained for in 2015, and because they never intended to sell the property to the Plaintiffs in the first place. Instead, the Defendants, upon information and belief, have been operating a scheme whereby they obtained large deposits from purchasers and used those deposits to fund other projects or pay back other purchasers, all while the Defendants benefited from rising real estate prices. Plaintiffs now sue for specific performance, or in the alternative, for monetary damages. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 7. Defendant 114-08 Taipei Inc. (“Taipei”) is the owner in fee simple of the real property at 114-03 Taipei Court Blvd., College Point, NY at Block No. 4019, Lot No. 126 on the land and tax map of the County of Queens in the State of New York (the “Property”). 3 of 11 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 04:17 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024 710998/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wing Fung Chau, alias “Andy Chau” is the principal of, beneficial owner of and/or controls Taipei, and controlled or oversaw the course of conduct alleged herein, including the real estate development of which 114-03 Taipei Court is a part. 9. On or about May 12, 2015, Defendant Taipei executed a contract with Plaintiff Waikeung Tsang to sell the Property (the “Contract”). 10. Plaintiff Waikeung Tsang is the husband of Plaintiff Shiag Ho. Mrs. Ho is the legal guardian and has power of attorney for Mr. Tsang, who suffers from a recent Alzheimer diagnosis. 11. At the time Mr. Tsang entered into the Contract, he had not been diagnosed with Alzheimer and was of sound mind. 12. Upon information and belief, Wing Fung Home Realty Home Realty Group, Inc. was the sole broker who brought about the sale. 13. The Contract, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, set the purchase price as $950,000, with a first deposit of $400,000, payable to the Seller at the time of execution. The final $550,000 was to be paid directly to the Seller at the Closing of Title. 14. The Contract included a mortgage contingency option for the purchase, which allowed the Purchasers to pay the purchase price by announcing it could do so within 60 days of written notice of the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (“TCO”). 15. Upon information and belief, no TCO was ever issued, nor written notice of same sent to the Plaintiffs. 16. In the paragraph designated as “DELIVERY OF DEED”, the Contract reads that “It is anticipated that the closing would take place on or before TWELVE (12) months from the date Purchaser’s Attorney receives a fully executed contract but no later than on or before Thirty (30) days from written notification to PURCHASER’S attorney that a Final Certificate of Occupancy has been issued”. 4 of 11 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 04:17 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024 710998/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 17. Immediately following the sentence regarding a Final Certificate of Occupancy, the Contract shows that the clause “TIME BEING OF THE ESSENCE” was stricken from the contract. 18. The Contract required Seller to erect and complete a legal two (2) family dwelling at its own cost and expense. 19. Seller took nearly four years, an unreasonable period of time, to complete the construction. 20. Throughout this time, Seller gave vague and implausible excuses for why the work was taking so long to complete. 21. Seller promised to complete the work in a reasonable period of time but failed to do so knowingly. Accordingly, seller intentionally misled the Plaintiffs. 22. Seller made omissions and misrepresentations to Purchasers and/or Purchasers’ transactional attorney regarding the reasons for delay, that Purchaser reasonably relied upon. In doing so, Seller induced Purchaser to avoid canceling the Contract because of the unreasonable delay, and refrain from requesting a return of the down payment. 23. For example, Seller misrepresented that the construction of the Property was being stalled by problems with electricity and water. Upon information and belief, this was false and does not in any case explain four years of delay. 24. In other instances, Seller simply made empty assurances to the Purchasers, promising that the work would be done “soon” but never delivering on said promises. 25. The Seller also made material omissions; namely, upon information and belief, that it was using the deposit to fund other projects. 26. Upon information and belief, Seller was not actually working on the construction of the home during that four year period. Instead, the Seller used Purchaser’s deposit during that period to fund other projects and/or return deposits to other purchasers in a manner resembling a Ponzi scheme. 5 of 11 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 04:17 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024 710998/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 27. In fact, Plaintiffs were aware of other purchasers in the same development who had been similarly wronged and potentially defrauded by Defendants and their associates. 28. As a result, Defendants, who had no intention of selling the property to Purchasers, defrauded Purchasers and deprived them of the use of nearly half a million dollars for four years that could have been used as a down payment for the sale of a property from an honest seller. 29. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs waited patiently, in reliance on the Contract and Seller’s repeated assurances, and intended to close on the property as soon as possible. 30. Upon information and belief, on or about May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs’ transactional attorney sent a request for the extension of the mortgage contingency period. Nonetheless, Plaintiff was willing and able to close with cash if need be. 31. In a letter dated May 28, 2019, Seller’s counsel sent a letter of “request of Contract Termination and return of Contract Deposit” to Plaintiffs’ transactional attorney (the “Request for Termination”) via email. 32. Article 39 of the Contract explicitly requires that all notices pursuant to the conditions of the Contract shall be in writing and sent to the attorneys by certified or registered mail or facsimile. 33. Upon information and belief, no such notice was sent. 34. The Seller returned the $400,000.00 deposit on or about June 2019. 35. After being retained as litigation counsel, Plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, sent a letter on June 19, 2019 (the “Demand Letter”) in response to the May 28 letter. 36. The Demand Letter denied the Seller’s request to rescind or terminate and restated the Plaintiffs’ intent to proceed with the closing of the Property as soon as possible, on a cash basis if necessary. 37. Seller subsequently failed to confirm its intent to honor its obligations under the Contract and proceed with the sale. 6 of 11 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 04:17 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024 710998/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 38. On approximately June 24, 2019, upon information and belief in an effort to derogate the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Contract and to encumber the Property to discourage Plaintiff from bringing this lawsuit, Defendant mortgaged the Property for $1.4 million dollars, nearly $500,000 more than the purchase price in the Contract. 39. The filing and recording of the mortgage documents with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance website, right after Plaintiffs issued their Demand Letter, is further evidence of the Defendants’ intentional fraud and misleading behavior. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE) 40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation above with the same force and effect as if set forth at length herein. 41. There exists a contract for the sale of the Property between Plaintiffs and Seller. 42. Plaintiffs duly performed all of their obligations under the Contract prior to Seller’s repudiation and remain ready, willing, and able to perform their remaining obligations. 43. Upon information and belief, there are no outstanding title issues with respect to the Property, including the recent, possibly fraudulent mortgage, that Seller could not clear, and the Seller is able to deliver merchantable title to the Plaintiffs if so ordered by the Court. 44. The Property is unique in character and the Plaintiff would have no adequate remedy at law if specific performance were not granted. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT) 45. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation above with the same force and effect as if set forth at length herein. 46. The Contract is legally enforceable as a binding offer and acceptance with consideration. 7 of 11 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 04:17 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024 710998/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 47. The Contract was a legally enforceable writing within the meaning of NY Gen. Obligations Law § 5-701. 48. Plaintiff fulfilled all of its obligations under the Contract. 49. Seller breached the Contract by representing that it would not proceed with the agreed transaction and returning the $400,000 initial deposit, despite Plaintiff’s intent and ability to close. 50. As a result, if Plaintiff is not able to obtain specific performance, Plaintiff is due monetary damages of no less than $500,000, representing the approximate additional cost to Plaintiff to purchase a home of similar quality and character. 51. Seller also breached the Contract by failing to obtain the final certificate of occupancy within 12 months from the date of the Contract, as required by the final paragraph of the first page of the Contract. 52. That paragraph obligates the Seller to pay Plaintiff five (5) percent interest per annum, which equals, to date, at least approximately $80,000. Seller has failed to make any payments. 53. As a result of the foregoing, Seller breached the Contract, thereby causing damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $600,000. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (FRAUD) 54. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations above with the same force and effect as if set forth at length herein. 55. Defendants lied to Plaintiffs about the completion date of the construction required by the Contract, and made misrepresentations to Plaintiffs throughout the four years that it took to obtain a final certificate of occupancy. 56. Defendants made false excuses for why the construction took four years, including making statements that issues with electricity and water were preventing the construction from moving forward. Many of these statements were false. 8 of 11 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 04:17 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024 710998/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 57. Defendants avoided responding to Plaintiffs’ inquiries regarding the delays in construction, thereby misleading the Plaintiffs. 58. While some issues may have existed, they do not explain four years of delay. Defendants made assurances and promises to the Plaintiffs throughout the four years that construction would be complete soon that Defendants knew to be false or misleading. 59. Defendants did so in order to profit from the misappropriation for four years of Plaintiffs’ $400,000 deposit. 60. Upon information and belief, Defendants used the deposit to fund other construction projects, to pay off other debts, and to return deposits on other contracts of sale they had no intention of fulfilling. 61. After enriching themselves through the use of the deposit, and after the value of the Property greatly increased, upon information and belief, Defendants obtained funds from elsewhere, and used those to return Plaintiffs’ deposit, with the hope that Plaintiffs would walk away, and Defendants would be able to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. 62. Because of Defendants’ fraud, Plaintiffs were deprived of $400,000 for four years that they could have used to purchase a similar property when prices were lower. Now, if Plaintiffs cannot purchase the Property, they will be forced to expend hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to purchase a home. 63. Plaintiffs are elderly and Mr. Tsang has a deteriorating medical condition that makes Defendants’ conduct especially egregious in depriving them of the home for which they bargained, paid, and waited patiently for four years. 64. As a result, Defendant Mr. Wing Fung Chau, alis “Andy Chau” should be held personally liable for the damages caused to Plaintiffs, in an amount to be determined at trial but no less than $600,000. 9 of 11 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 04:17 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024 710998/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows: a) on the first cause of action ordering the sale of the Property to Plaintiffs; b) on the second cause of action against defendant Taipei, in the amount of no less than $600,000 plus interest; c) on the third cause of action against defendant Wing Fung Chau alias “Andy Chau” in the amount of no less than $600,000 plus interest; and d) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: Brooklyn, NY MUCHMORE & ASSOCIATES PLLC June 24, 2019 Counsel for Plaintiffs By: Marwan Sehwail, Esq. 217 Havemeyer Street, 4th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11211 (917) 932-0299 10 of 11 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 04:17 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 706482/2024 710998/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2024 06/24/2019 ATTORNEY VERIFICATION The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, an associate with the law firm of Muchmore & Associates PLLC, attorneys for plaintiffs Waikeung Tsang and Shiang Ho, hereby affirms the following to be true: deponent has read the foregoing Verified Complaint and knows the contents thereof; the same is true to deponent’s own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes to be true; and the reason this verification is being made by deponent and not by Mr. Tsang or Mrs. Ho is because they are located in New York County, New York. The grounds of deponent’s knowledge are communications with Plaintiffs and copies of Plaintiff's records in deponent’s possession. The undersigned affirms this statement to be true under penalties of perjury. Dated: June 24, 2019 Marwan Sehwail 11 of 11